Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

On "Clutch"

I disagree with much of the Post-Gazette's long new article about "clutch," but it's nonetheless pretty illuminating. The article begins with an explanation of the position, held by many sabermetric types, that "clutch hitting" is a skill that's so minor that it easily gets buried under other factors, like the skills of the players involved and natural variation in performance. It's a pretty fair description of the position that many take, except that I don't know any baseball fan who has seriously argued that Michael Jordan or John Elway weren't clutch.

The Post-Gazette then presents another side of the debate, quoting a number of players and former players who believe that clutch hitting is an important skill. The funniest quote comes from Jim Colborn:

Of those who feel otherwise, Pirates pitching coach Jim Colborn said, "Dead wrong. There is an element in certain people that allows them to focus at their peak and get into a zone when the situation is more important."

He cited, from his playing days, Joe Rudi, a career .264 hitter who elevated his level every postseason for the Athletics. [NOTE: Since I wrote this article, the Post-Gazette's sentence has changed.]

"Believe me: For all the great players in that lineup, Joe Rudi was not the one you wanted to face. He just had a knack."

Rudi played in the postseason every year from 1971 to 1975, and he posted a career postseason line of .264/.329/.386, giving him a .713 OPS. That's lower than his regular-season OPS for every one of those years except 1971 and much lower than his regular-season OPSes in 1972, 1974 and 1975. It's true that a lot of Rudi's clutch reputation is based on his defense, but I don't think anyone denies that clutch defense exists. In fact, I don't know of anyone who has studied it. The debate about clutch being a skill in baseball has focused almost exclusively on hitting, because that's the only area where sabermetricians are making counterintuitive claims. And at least as far as Rudi's hitting is concerned, the notion that he "elevated his level every postseason" is flat wrong. That Rudi is the first player who comes to Colborn's mind is telling, I think.

You may think that it's silly of me to argue this point with Pirates players and coaches, but it isn't, because a lot of their decisions are apparently based on some pretty ridiculous thinking about clutch hitting. The Post-Gazette's description of Jim Tracy's position is worth quoting at length:

When his team wins, Jim Tracy invariably points to "big" hits that were delivered. When the team loses, he points to the lack of same. Even after the Pirates were blanked on three measly hits in their home opener April 9, Tracy lamented, "We had chances."

Tracy's view is reflected in how he forms his lineup, bucking the modern thinking that the highest on-base percentage players should be stacked at the top. Instead, he favors the more traditional approach of getting the runner on, moving him along and getting a "big" hit.

"Isn't that what makes teams good?" Tracy said when asked about his value of clutch. "It's what separates you from the pack, your ability to take the big at-bat. You don't expect somebody to hit 1.000 with runners in scoring position, but you have to get your share of hits in those situations. Look at the upper echelon of clubs, and that's what you look for. And if we can get to that point, we've got a chance to become a pretty decent team."

Got that? The Pirates' lineups and offensive strategy are based on ideas about "clutch"-ness for which there is very little evidence. Jack Wilson hits second either because he's good at moving runners over or because he delivers in clutch situations.

Well, with the excellent and (apparently) clutch-tacular Freddy Sanchez hitting third most of last year, the Pirates still finished 17th in the majors in runs scored from the leadoff position and 25th in runs scored from the #2 slot. Why? Because, #$(%*&-it, they finished 28th in the majors in OBP from each of the first two spots in their order. It simply will not do to put a speed demon in the leadoff spot and Wilson in the #2 spot, and then to hope that Sanchez will come through in the rare instances in which one of those players actually gets on base. It doesn't work. We know it doesn't work. But Tracy would rather continue to cling to this absurd belief about the way games are won than get real about the situation and get Wilson's sorry act out of the #2 spot.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the Pirates finished 29th in the majors in runs scored in 2006. They finished dead last in OPS. In 2005 they finished 28th in runs scored and 24th in OPS. In 2004 the Pirates were 27th in runs scored and 26th in OPS. And this year, they're 28th in runs scored and 25th in OPS.

There's a very obvious pattern here, and if Jim Tracy hasn't figured it out despite being with the organization for well over a year, he shouldn't be running a Dustbuster, let alone a professional baseball team. "Big hits" are not the problem. A lack of offensive talent is the problem.

This matters. It matters because I have to watch Wilson try to hit four or five times a game instead of three or four. And it matters because, if you think that your team's problem is its failure to capitalize on its chances rather than the inadequacy of its players, you misdiagnose your problems. You run the risk of getting too complacent and waiting too long for bad players to start executing in key situations, when in fact the problem is not that they don't hit well enough in key situations, but that they're simply bad players.

0 recs  |  Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

charlie
Enjoyed reading this-real good stuff.

by patthatt on Apr 24, 2007 1:55 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Colborn
"There is an element in certain people that allows them to focus at their peak and get into a zone when the situation is more important."

Isn't that just another way of saying those same players lack focus most of the time?

And somehow that's supposed to be a GOOD thing?

by sisyphus on Apr 24, 2007 5:09 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Tracy
He sounds like Gene Lamont.  Back when the Pirates, as usual, were floundering at the bottom of the NL in runs and OBP, somebody asked Lamont about the lack of baserunners.  He said that wasn't why they weren't scoring runs, it was because they weren't driving in the guys who did get on base.  It doesn't matter who's managing or who's the GM, the Pirates continue to think it's 1908, they continue to load up on players who don't get on base, and they continue not to score runs.  And they never learn a thing.

by WTM on Apr 24, 2007 7:51 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Missing one point...
In regards to Joe Rudi (and any player that is supposedly "clutch").  First, we need to define exactly what clutch means.  To me, it means coming through in key situations, especially in big games.

In the article it talks about Jeter's miniscule average in a series, but he still delivered a key home run when it really mattered (to win a game).

It's quite possible that Rudi's composite line might be mediocre (or worse), but what few hits that he got could have come in key situations.

This is why RISP is also a misleading/incomplete stat in this argument.  There's a big difference between having 2 runners on with 2 outs in the first inning versus the same 2 runners on with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and the team behind a run.

To me, getting a hit in the 1st inning is nice, but getting a hit in the 9th is "clutch".

I think that the entire concept is more perception than reality.  I think that the concept of "choke" is much firmer than clutch.  Great players tend to maintain their focus at all times, meaning they're going to come through at an above-average rate in key situations because they're above-average talents.  There's no such thing as "110% focus or effort".  However, there is a such thing as "50% focus/effort", which would be a choker... someone who can't handle the pressure situations.

by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 9:27 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

OK
In regards to Joe Rudi (and any player that is supposedly "clutch").  First, we need to define exactly what clutch means.  To me, it means coming through in key situations, especially in big games.

Fine, but the whole argument becomes absurd if you pursue that argument. Rudi's postseason lines were worse than his regular season lines. So if he did well in really important postseason opportunities (however you'd care to define them), that means he did really, really poorly in other postseason opportunities. Which makes the notion that he's clutch pretty strange to me - what, all those opportunities in first and second innings of postseason games weren't important enough for him to come through?

by Charlie on Apr 24, 2007 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jeter
Well, yeah, Jeter delivered a key home run that won a game in the series, but his miniscule average through the seven games certainly helped the fact that the Yankees lost the series in question here.
http://whereisvanslyke.blogspot.com http://mlb.aolsportsblog.com/

by whygavs on Apr 24, 2007 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Holy Grail
"I think that the entire concept is more perception than reality.  I think that the concept of "choke" is much firmer than clutch."

Then you should have no trouble showing that with statistics, and your book will sell a ton of copies.

"Great players tend to maintain their focus at all times, meaning they're going to come through at an above-average rate in key situations because they're above-average talents."

In 89 lifetime post-season at bats, Willie Mays hit .247 with 1 home run and an OPS of .660. Is there something wrong with your theory, or is Willie Mays not a great player?

"It's quite possible that Rudi's composite line might be mediocre (or worse), but what few hits that he got could have come in key situations."

"This is why RISP is also a misleading/incomplete stat in this argument.  There's a big difference between having 2 runners on with 2 outs in the first inning versus the same 2 runners on with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and the team behind a run."

During his career Rudi hit WORSE late in close games than he did the rest of the time. In fact, he hit best when his team was behind or ahead by more than 4 runs.

by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes Virginia, there is clutch
Clutch is as real as Santa Claus.  It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Clutch! It would be as dreary as if there were no sisyphus, or Bucs Dugout! There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

... and speaking of childhood, I was a wee lad of 8 or 9 when Joe Rudi was climbing walls and making catches that I can still see in my mind.  I honestly think it was only two catches, but it may as well have been 10.  Joe Rudi would be long forgotten by just about everyone if not for those catches, and perhaps for hitting the go-ahead HR in the series clincher in 1974.  Why do we remember Joe Rudi, if not for his postseason performance?

I don't know what you're railing against sisyphus (I mean, where are you going with "holy grail"?).  Clutch may not be tangible or measureable or a skill or whatever.  So it's a perception, so what?  I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.  Maybe clutch players are a myth, but clutch plays are not.

azibuck

by azibuck on Apr 25, 2007 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Holy Grail II
Many have quested after the Holy Grail, and none have found it. Many have also quested after a way to identify clutch performers, and none have found it.

No Indiana Jones wisecracks, lol.

Clutch plays definitely exist. Does clutch performance exist as a skill? If it does, nobody has been able to show it.

by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is weird
I wrote a post that probably wasn't any longer, if any, than OmarMoreno18's but the system is saying I can't post a message longer than 50 (!) characters. What's up with this, Charlie? Any idea?

by bucdaddy on Apr 24, 2007 10:39 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I think the issue is
that you can't post a subject line longer than 50 characters. Might that have been the problem?

by Charlie on Apr 24, 2007 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

9th inning hit vs. 1st inning hit
Omar
"This is why RISP is also a misleading/incomplete stat in this argument.  There's a big difference between having 2 runners on with 2 outs in the first inning versus the same 2 runners on with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and the team behind a run."

Not sure I follow here.  If the dude had made the hit in the first inning with 2 runners on and two out, wouldn't the team be up by one (or at least tied) rather than down by one?  

I can see the emotional lure of the 9th inning comeback, but isn't the first inning run really just as valuable (maybe moreso if the confidence of being ahead going into the 9th rather than behind is considered)?

by SteveG on Apr 24, 2007 10:41 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Depends on what you mean
The ninth inning run is more "valuable", in a sense, because there is little/no time for the opposition to match it. Early runs are less meaningful (but certainly not meaningless) because plenty of time still remains.

by matskralc on Apr 24, 2007 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Clarification...
What I meant was this: all runs are important, no argument here.  But the pressure factor is much different in the 1st inning vs. the 9th when losing.

I don't think 1st inning pressure is going to affect too many players, whereas late inning pressure with the game on the line is a whole different beast.

During this "crunch time" (another cliche for the thread <g>) I don't think the great become greater... rather, the weaker of mind and heart get exposed ("choke").

by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK, that one got through ...
I was trying to say I agree wholeheartedly with you, that talent trumps all. It even trumps luck (closely related, IMHO, to "clutch," though supposedly a player has some control over one and none over the other), because isn't it odd that you can buy "luck"? Otherwise, how to explain why the Yankees and Red Sox are always luckier than the Pirates? With clutch, I'd guess players who as a group hit .310 are clutchier than players who hit .210, simply because they'll get more hits in ALL situations. You could probably make a better argument for clutch pitching than clutch hitting, if the latter exists at all.

by bucdaddy on Apr 24, 2007 10:43 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Jordan and Elway
Weren't clutch, they were better.  Actually, they were the best.

by hisjazziness on Apr 24, 2007 10:51 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

yeah
They were two of the best players in the history of their respective sports. Of course they were going to come through in the "clutch" a few times. And I'm absolutely positive that there are "clutch" situations in which both men failed. But because they failed, nobody remembers those times.

by matskralc on Apr 24, 2007 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely...
Thanks for pointing that out, I was going to mention something similar but the word count was already up there <g>!

The greatest players in all sports are the ones on the field/court/ice when it matters most.  So they have the greatest opportunity to succeed and create that Sportscenter highlight victory.  The failures are quickly forgotten, which creates an illusion of "clutchness".

One could also argue about guys like Elway that if they were truly great, why would they need to come back in the last 2 minutes to steal victory out of the jaws of defeat?  Shouldn't they have dominated all game, making the "clutch" comeback unnecessary?  But that's a story for another day...

by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ugh, Elway
Elway was great and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but putting him in the same breath with MJ is nuts. Quick, which former Stanford QB has the most combined wins in the Super Bowl and the Rose Bowl? It's not Elway. He pulled an Eli Manning (or maybe Manning pulled an Elway) when he was picked by the Colts in the NFL draft. He wanted to play out West. So, he whined and threatened to play in the minors for the Yanks, with Steinbrenner wooing him the whole time, in order to force a trade to Denver. Then he continued to lay colossal stinkers in the Super Bowl until Terrell Davis came along.

The answer to the question is about former Stanford QBs is Jim Plunkett.

by clementeinright on Apr 25, 2007 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nothing to do with anything
What does forcing the trade to Denver have to do with this discussion, or anything at all?  It proves Elway was smart as well as good.  The Colts were run extremely poorly in the 80's.

And Elway may not have played well in the Super Bowls, but a pretty average Denver team went to three directly because of him.  He elevated them, in some cases carried them on his back, alone.

Here's a trivia question for you:  How many Broncos were named to the All-Decade team of the 1980's?  Now how many played for the Giants, Redskins and 49ers?

Answers:  1 (Rick Upchurch) and 14.

azibuck

by azibuck on Apr 25, 2007 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Elway
Agreed that the whining has nothing to do with clutchiness. Just wanted to point it out because I think it says something about his personality, not his clutchiness.

But I do take exception to saying Elway was smart for forcing a trade from the Colts, who as you say, were "run extremely poorly in the '80s" to a team that he had to carry on his back, nearly alone. Could it have been much worse in Baltimore/Indy? I mean how smart were the Broncos to have a marquee QB and not get him any sort of offensive talent?

Those decade teams are pretty interesting (http://www.nfl.com/history/legends/1980s). Upchurch's best seasons were in the 1970s and he is listed as a "kick returner" as opposed to a "punt returner". Yet, Upchurch didn't return a single kickoff in the 1980s (http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=UPCHURIC01).

Thanks for the discussion and I'll try to stay on topic.

by clementeinright on Apr 26, 2007 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed
This post is great.  Good work Charles.

by bryanzane on Apr 24, 2007 12:09 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Charlie
Amen brother.

by Travis on Apr 24, 2007 2:21 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I am also gratified
Great post and discussion. Two things about the article:

They present a ton of numbers that tell you clutch is miniscule, and the equally-weighted counterargument uses almost nothing besides anecdotal evidence. That tells you something right there.

And I love, LOVE, this paragraph:

"Tracy's view is reflected in how he forms his lineup, bucking the modern thinking that the highest on-base percentage players should be stacked at the top. Instead, he favors the more traditional approach of getting the runner on, moving him along and getting a "big" hit."

If only for this excerpt:

"...bucking the modern thinking that the highest OBP players should be at the top. Instead, he favors the approach of getting the runner on..."

If I were an editor I have to say I would have blown the whistle on that one.

And re: early vs. late inning situations. While a player's "clutchness" can certainly be measured better in a late game situation, the value of his contribution should not be overly stressed. If A-Rod hits a three-run home run in the second and Jeter hits a walk-off single, A-Rod contributed more to that win, clutch or not. Therefore, he's still a more valuable player to have on your team, even if he doesn't hit in the ninth.

by Carnival Matleuse on Apr 24, 2007 3:02 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Good comments...
And I love the contradiction pointed out above... to make the lineup work we need to get the guys on base.  So let's put our worst OBP guys up top.  Priceless.  At least Jose Castillo's not leading off!

I understand your point on early vs. late inning situations.  But if we're talking about "clutch" we have to be limiting the discussion to specific high-pressure, game-critical situations.  Otherwise, anything can be referred to as clutch.  I consider a 1st inning HR as "production"... always welcome and equally useful regardless of inning or circumstance.  A dinger is (at least) one run on the board, periood.

"Clutch" would be producing under the most stressful of situations... you could have a hitter that's unproductive overall in a series but gets a huge clutch hit to win a game.  My guess is the Joe Rudi example would fall into this category, or Jeter's referenced series.

Again, I don't buy into clutch performers, it's a faulty perception.  But I do believe there are chokers... Barry Lamar comes to mind...

by OmarMoreno18 on Apr 24, 2007 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bonds
In 48 post-season games Barry Bonds has an OPS of .936. During the regular season his OPS is .987 late in close games.

Your statement concerning Bonds is a prime example that "clutchness" exists only in the mind of the observer.

by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You can't be serious
In Bonds first 27 postseason games, covering five series for two teams, his OPS was... shit.  Then,he had a phenomenal 2002 postseason over three series.  I'm sorry, but that doesn't erase how epically he choked before that.
azibuck

by azibuck on Apr 25, 2007 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

here's a team of REALLY 'clutch' players!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clutch_%28band%29

but seriously, when was the last time you looked at a Pirates lineup and said to yourself, "yeah, that's  logical"?  I think there was a brief period in the late '90s, when Kevin Young was at his prime but before someone decided that Jason Kendall was a leadoff hitter... however, I might have been dreaming.  if not then, you might have to go back to one of Jim Leyland's early 1990s lineups....

by humbucker on Apr 24, 2007 3:43 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Not sure what you're getting at...
...but Kendall and his .400 OBP belonged at the top of the lineup.

by matskralc on Apr 24, 2007 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Kendall
I was born in 1960, and Jason Kendall was by far the best leadoff hitter the Pirates have had in my lifetime.

by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I should have checked baseball-reference.com first
please accept my apologies: based on OBP, Jason Kendall was arguably the best leadoff hitter the Pirates have had since 1960. I would have picked Matty Alou, but like Kendall he really wasn't blindingly fast, nor did he draw a lot of walks (and Alou likely didn't bat leadoff during that brief time that Maury Wills was a Pirate).  Both Alou and Kendall would probably be better choices than Frank Taveras and Omar Moreno, who both had more pure speed but less contact/lower averages, but again Kendall's OBP gives him the edge overall.

by humbucker on Apr 25, 2007 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Alou
Alou would be my second choice. He was very good for a while there.

By the way, Alou and Wills pretty much split leadoff duties while they were teammates.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PIT/1967_bo.shtml

That website absolutely rocks.

by sisyphus on Apr 25, 2007 6:28 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.
Start posting about the Pirates »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Park_fathersday_aj_bday_030_small
What's to become of Neil Walker?
Small
Pittsburgh Proud
Small
Pirates rotation next year
Small
Rich Harden
20090612mf_fleury_cup_500hp_small
JJ Hardy traded to the Twins!
101_0170_small
Lot of Pent Up News from World Series No Fly Zone
3dacrssi_small
Let's say we didn't trade Freddy...
18470r_small
Ex-Pirate Enrique Wilson is apparently a real sleazeball
Remer_small
What you can expect from Aki
Pitt20_small
Akinori Iwamura is Officially A Pirate

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

VV, Hacker, Lerud Off 40 Man
Kevin Polcovich honored
Rich Hill Is A Free Agent
Anyone for Brian Buscher
Atlanta's Offseason Needs May included Trading for Matt Capps
Shortstop – Jack Wilson, Pittsburgh and Seattle Wilson won’t win a Gold Gl...
Freddy Sanchez re-ups with Giants
Pirates name Carlos Garcia 1B coach/Infield Instructor
Pirates Claim Justin Thomas off Waivers from M's
Pirates to Move High-A Affiliate to Florida State League

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie